Some issues to clarify & maybe CS can do something for the kids?

[vince123123]

I'm not too sure if Downblouse/upskirt analogy would apply for a photographer paying a model for a lingerie shoot, and then proceeding to point his lens at certain parts of the anatomy (which are exposed in full view ratehr than being hidden and having to go at odd angles to downblouse or upskirt.

It is also possible that the general defence of consent may apply in this situation. Hence, bearing in mind the above two points, I think it is quite a weak case overall.

If this is actionable, then what will happen is that anyone who walks in the MRT, stares at a girl's breasts/legs etc in a straight on angle will also be caught under your interpretation.

i have been following this thread for a while. there is a possible legal recourse should the model feel that their modesty has been insulted by the actions of the said participant.

this is not a common charge for offences against a women's modesty. most cases fall under sec 354, Outrage of Modesty (commonly known as molest) which has a criminal force requirement in its definition.

Section 509 is used to charge cases of offenders who take upskirt, down-blouse pictures of women in public without their consent. i believe that offenders charged with 509 in such cases may be charged for possession of obscene material as well. the key point is to establish that the offender has intruded into the privacy or modesty of a women.

in the case of lingerie models, the models are paid professionals to model the outfits or for commercial purposes. there is a case to be established since being a paid professional does not mean that the contract allows for the photographer to intrude into the models privacy or insult their modesty.

the models must decide whether to proceed with the case. other people including the organiser can choose to report the case to the police, but they can only proceed to investigate this charge if the models decide to proceed with it.

 

[headfonz]

I'm not too sure if Downblouse/upskirt analogy would apply for a photographer paying a model for a lingerie shoot, and then proceeding to point his lens at certain parts of the anatomy (which are exposed in full view ratehr than being hidden and having to go at odd angles to downblouse or upskirt.

It is also possible that the general defence of consent may apply in this situation. Hence, bearing in mind the above two points, I think it is quite a weak case overall.

If this is actionable, then what will happen is that anyone who walks in the MRT, stares at a girl's breasts/legs etc in a straight on angle will also be caught under your interpretation.

technically yes. in practice, not every case would end up being a criminal charge even if the complainant makes a report. cases of 509 against downblouse / upskirt takers are usually on multiple offences by the same offender.

consent by a model to take part in a lingerie shoot is unlikely a "sign your privacy / modesty away" defence. there is a reasonable limit to the extent of the contractual obligation of a model when participating in a shoot. if the model had posed or behaved in a manner that let's things out in full view of the photographers involved, then it can be argued that the model has given her consent through her actions.

in the incident described, the said subject's actions were upsetting the models and he is believed to be taking shots that was clearly aimed at certain areas of the model's body even when the model's were not posing for shots or were moving to the changing room. this is clearly not an appropriate behaviour of a paying professional photographer. if his actions are already of beyond doubt is causing distress to the models, there is already a case to proceed with if the persons involved wish to.

if the models do feel offended by the said photographer, there is no harm in lodging a police report. whether the case is strong enough to go to court is decided by the AGC with the recommendation of the investigation officer.

 

[vince123123]

Perhaps so, I don't necessarily agree and maintain my view of the weakness of the case, but as they say, in discussions, we can always take different views to a certain set of facts

Also, its unfortunate that s509 is non-seizable, and going by how our really "wise" police have been conducting themselves and how they go about advising complainants of non-seizable offences, more obstacles are placed in front of the complaintant....which is a shame.

technically yes. in practice, not every case would end up being a criminal charge even if the complainant makes a report. cases of 509 against downblouse / upskirt takers are usually on multiple offences by the same offender.

consent by a model to take part in a lingerie shoot is unlikely a "sign your privacy / modesty away" defence. there is a reasonable limit to the extent of the contractual obligation of a model when participating in a shoot. if the model had posed or behaved in a manner that let's things out in full view of the photographers involved, then it can be argued that the model has given her consent through her actions.

in the incident described, the said subject's actions were upsetting the models and he is believed to be taking shots that was clearly aimed at certain areas of the model's body even when the model's were not posing for shots or were moving to the changing room. this is clearly not an appropriate behaviour of a paying professional photographer. if his actions are already of beyond doubt is causing distress to the models, there is already a case to proceed with if the persons involved wish to.

if the models do feel offended by the said photographer, there is no harm in lodging a police report. whether the case is strong enough to go to court is decided by the AGC with the recommendation of the investigation officer.

 

[headfonz]

Perhaps so, I don't necessarily agree and maintain my view of the weakness of the case, but as they say, in discussions, we can always take different views to a certain set of facts

Also, its unfortunate that s509 is non-seizable, and going by how our really "wise" police have been conducting themselves and how they go about advising complainants of non-seizable offences, more obstacles are placed in front of the complaintant....which is a shame.

it perfectly ok for any of us to disagree on the strength of a case. was just sharing what i know and the possibility of a legal route if the models wish to pursue this.

 

[vince123123]

Yup yup More information is always helpful hehe I've heard many stories from pple seeking my help that they get discouraged by the police each time they want to report something.

it perfectly ok for any of us to disagree on the strength of a case. was just sharing what i know and the possibility of a legal route if the models wish to pursue this.